Main Battles Moving Forward

[Mr.BossMan]

That's not what I meant. Obviously there's a larger battle going on around the characters, but the NPCs are unusable. Outcomes are determined solely by PCs.

Ya I know what you meant. No NPC's in the player character skirmishes. The NPC's are fighting the "main battle" so to speak. I think you just not confused on my point, or maybe it was I who was the confuser-er?

Oh and ya I like the idea of having more then one PC battle. But I also like the idea someone above states where we give each of those battles a number of importance kind of like a "point value"

And here's why Admins, let me show you why, cause it's worth a try.

Lets say we have three battles that determine the out come of a faction victory.

One battle is a simple skirmish in the streets. Worth 1 point.

One battle is storming a palace. Worth 3 points.

Another battle is securing the hanger. Worth 2 points.

Now I like this for these reasons.

1. It clearly defined which of these threads is key to victory, just like the real world.
   1. Killing the enemy is important yes, but not as important as capturing a key building like a hanger or palace.
      1. Just like in the real world, where, for instance, taking control of an oil field is worth more strategically then, let's say killing a single enemy.
         1. One clearly helps The tide of battle more so then The other.
2. The skirmishes worth more points, could become more dangerous. Or more likely one team will die and the other won't. So for more important objectives, in turn adds higher risk for your PC's.
   1. I think this will help bring the community together in a more PvP way. And here's why, keep on reading, cause I got a good reason coming up soon.
      1. Lower risk battles are worth less points. But they are less dangerous. So for those people who don't want to risk their characters, they can engage in these lower risk battles. That way they still contribute to their faction and have a meaningful impact as a whole. But the risk is less.
         1. Which means their characters are safer. Which in turn makes those people who are less willing to participate in PvP. More willing to participate in PvP, because their characters won't die, or at the very least, they have a lower chance of dying.
      2. Now for those people that want to go balls to the wall, they can contribute by engaing their characters in more dangerous PvP battles. But there battles are worth more for their faction.
         1. Get what I'm putting down now? Is a smile crossing your lips cause your saying "Damn BossMan's a real boss, why didn't I think of this?"
   2. Now not all battles have to follow up in the 1, 2, 3 point system. They can differ of course.
      1. And maybe instead of three battles to decide a winner we can have like five or six. Each one having its own importance to the conquest.

And I am out of idea's for this. But I think it's solid and can be added on to, or improved to fit the sites standards.

So what y'all think?

 

[Fen Vel]

This is a better put more thought out version of the idea I had, well done.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Avoiding stats is something we decided long ago so that's probably not a system we'd implement. We encourage the FLs, when planning battles, to make sure that each battleground is important, that way there aren't lesser-valued ones like "a fight in the streets." Each one should represent some sort of key objective.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

Avoiding stats is something we decided long ago so that's probably not a system we'd implement. We encourage the FLs, when planning battles, to make sure that each battleground is important, that way there aren't lesser-valued ones like "a fight in the streets." Each one should represent some sort of key objective.

I don't think it's stats, just putting a numeric value of importance. I don't think that's to far of a stretch.

And I remember one battle was siezing a farm house. How in any way would that change the tide of battle?

I think the system I laid out would help bring in PvPers, or at the very least encourage it. And it took me all of twenty minutes two write out, I though of it as I typed.

So if y'all put more thought into it while your in the "think tank" stage. I feel like it can become successful. At the very least it's worth a try.

But then again your the Big BossMan, not me.

 

[Ser Gregor]

Ideally there wouldn't be a thread dedicated to a small firefight in the streets. The thread would, for example, actually be dedicated to a platoon advancing through the city ("alongside" the bulk NPC forces) in order to secure and destroy the anti-air batteries that are keeping the bulk of the attacker's landing craft and starfighters at bay.

Successfully dismantling the AA batteries would provide a clear tactical and strategic advantage in the battle. Combined with other self-contained successes representing flashpoints across the planetary battlefield the overall course of the battle and the victor can easily be determined.

Attackers destroy the AA batteries, secure the Government Citadel, and delivered a nasty blow to the defending fleet. Meanwhile the defenders only succeeded in stopping the attackers from disabling the military airfield shields. It's clear from the results that the attackers have been far more successful across the board.

 

[Green Ranger]

I don't think it's stats, just putting a numeric value of importance. I don't think that's to far of a stretch.

And I remember one battle was siezing a farm house. How in any way would that change the tide of battle?

I think the system I laid out would help bring in PvPers, or at the very least encourage it. And it took me all of twenty minutes two write out, I though of it as I typed.

So if y'all put more thought into it while your in the "think tank" stage. I feel like it can become successful. At the very least it's worth a try.

But then again your the Big BossMan, not me.

I mean, I read that, and it's like...my take on it is that we just need to make sure battle scenarios are better. IT beats implementing a whole weird point system where someone's battle effectively doesn't matter.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I mean, I read that, and it's like...my take on it is that we just need to make sure battle scenarios are better. IT beats implementing a whole weird point system where someone's battle effectively doesn't matter.

Agreed. That goes back to what I said about encouraging FLs to make sure all battlegrounds are relevant and strategically meaningful.

 

[Krajin]

What about distraction battles? Ones used to lure more powerful individuals away from a main objective?

 

[Andrewza]

And I remember one battle was siezing a farm house. How in any way would that change the tide of battle?

You would be surprised what random piece of terrian becomes critical in a war. That hill there, that hotel here extra extra. As for your points sytem. I dont like it. Some one gets the raw dealsnd relegated to some borring fight of no value. If every fight is important then every one get to ne a true hero or vilian. That skirmish in the street becomes more important if one side is protecting say a VIP. That hanger could be how the royal family will escape and those at the door are buying time. Hell with these battles you could loose the fight but win the objective thuse the battle. A nobel sacfice is the best sacrifice.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

What about distraction battles? Ones used to lure more powerful individuals away from a main objective?

That's still of strategic importance.

 

[StormWolf]

Perhaps not a numeric system, but some sort of mission rating like "blue milk run", "Risky", "Dangerous", and "Deadly" would give a prospect player an idea of what they are getting themselves into at a glance. A massive battlefield with a "deadly" mission rating wouldn't be a place I'd be taking a Padawan until they have more experience.

Something like this could be put in the prefix tab for thread titles and used for non-pvp missions as well; just a way of giving the players a hint, like the ESRB, but for threads. Higher risk often means higher reward, so it falls to the player with how much they want to gamble. "Blue Milk Run" and "Risky" would fall under panny slots, "Dangerous" would be like a game of Craps that draws attention from around the casino, and "Deadly" would be one of those high stakes poker games they televise around the world.

 

[Outlander]

Perhaps not a numeric system, but some sort of mission rating like "blue milk run", "Risky", "Dangerous", and "Deadly" would give a prospect player an idea of what they are getting themselves into at a glance. A massive battlefield with a "deadly" mission rating wouldn't be a place I'd be taking a Padawan until they have more experience.

Something like this could be put in the prefix tab for thread titles and used for non-pvp missions as well; just a way of giving the players a hint, like the ESRB, but for threads.

Even if this isn't done for the site overall, I'd certainly like to see factions, main and indie, implement something like this.

 

[Andrewza]

Thats prety mutch how the jedi order does it. Green is easy yellow is meduime a red hard.

 

[Outlander]

Thats prety mutch how the jedi order does it. Green is easy yellow is meduime a red hard.

To keep with the theme of the Accord, I'd probably give Grades required for each mission, but essentially that.

 

[Insoulent]

I wanted to wait until the think tank, but I sort of wanted to elaborate on my ideas for ground battles (cause there's still a naval component, and even a political component too) that sort of sinks into this "point system" that's been suggested.

Too not get too longwinded I'll run down the basic strip of the idea. The Galaxy map is divided into 11 sectors (this is an arbitrary number that can be changed), and these sectors serve as faction territory. The game is simple, right? Take over territory is the goal, essentially. But you need to initiate a Sector Battle to overtake the territory. Before a Sector Battle can be initiated, the opposing faction must have at least three (again, arbitrary) Skirmish victories under their belt to establish a presence in the Sector. Again, there's some stuff that deals with Naval and Political aspects to this too - but I'll hold off till later. Skirmishes can take place on non-Sector Capital planets, and if they are to take place in Sector Capitals - they would require the opposition's heads up.

But basically after three skirmish victories, the Sector Battle can commence. The Sector Battle is what we'd consider a Main Battle now. Takes place in the Sector Capital, usually split into three essential land battles. Best two out of three wins. Not the pretty point-system suggested, but it's an easier alternative.

But it really makes the fighting into a sort of game (I even had faction "bonuses" for battle purposes, but I'll let that get shot down whenever it get's to that point).

EDIT: Skirmishes are a vague term that can mean anything. 1v1 Combat, 2v1, 2v2. And there's a "Sabotage" sub-set for Indie factions specifically.

 

[Outlander]

I wanted to wait until the think tank, but I sort of wanted to elaborate on my ideas for ground battles (cause there's still a naval component, and even a political component too) that sort of sinks into this "point system" that's been suggested.

Too not get too longwinded I'll run down the basic strip of the idea. The Galaxy map is divided into 11 sectors (this is an arbitrary number that can be changed), and these sectors serve as faction territory. The game is simple, right? Take over territory is the goal, essentially. But you need to initiate a Sector Battle to overtake the territory. Before a Sector Battle can be initiated, the opposing faction must have at least three (again, arbitrary) Skirmish victories under their belt to establish a presence in the Sector. Again, there's some stuff that deals with Naval and Political aspects to this too - but I'll hold off till later. Skirmishes can take place on non-Sector Capital planets, and if they are to take place in Sector Capitals - they would require the opposition's heads up.

But basically after three skirmish victories, the Sector Battle can commence. The Sector Battle is what we'd consider a Main Battle now. Takes place in the Sector Capital, usually split into three essential land battles. Best two out of three wins. Not the pretty point-system suggested, but it's an easier alternative.

But it really makes the fighting into a sort of game (I even had faction "bonuses" for battle purposes, but I'll let that get shot down whenever it get's to that point).

I'd say this is fine in theory, but would need to be opened up and stripped down to be practical. Why not just have faction leaders work out with other faction leaders when a point is reached where a grouping of planets can be taken?

 

[Insoulent]

That leads to the political aspect of the battle system, one could do a declaration of war (making both factions official enemies), or truces that lead to covert subjection and take overs and whatever else you could think of. Faction leaders are pretty busy, and it'd really give the Politicians something to do with their minds and tongues - or fingers since we're writers.

And I also got some other well-thought out game-y type additions to the system that I know would complicate things, but make it fun and challenging to take over territory. Sort of like faction "perks". I got a long-winded complex version prepared, but I know people don't like reading those, so I generally spitball and take what I can get.

 

[Outlander]

But when it comes down to it, all of that goes through FLs anyways.

 

[Gamov]

I wanted to wait until the think tank, but I sort of wanted to elaborate on my ideas for ground battles (cause there's still a naval component, and even a political component too) that sort of sinks into this "point system" that's been suggested.

Too not get too longwinded I'll run down the basic strip of the idea. The Galaxy map is divided into 11 sectors (this is an arbitrary number that can be changed), and these sectors serve as faction territory. The game is simple, right? Take over territory is the goal, essentially. But you need to initiate a Sector Battle to overtake the territory. Before a Sector Battle can be initiated, the opposing faction must have at least three (again, arbitrary) Skirmish victories under their belt to establish a presence in the Sector. Again, there's some stuff that deals with Naval and Political aspects to this too - but I'll hold off till later. Skirmishes can take place on non-Sector Capital planets, and if they are to take place in Sector Capitals - they would require the opposition's heads up.

But basically after three skirmish victories, the Sector Battle can commence. The Sector Battle is what we'd consider a Main Battle now. Takes place in the Sector Capital, usually split into three essential land battles. Best two out of three wins. Not the pretty point-system suggested, but it's an easier alternative.

But it really makes the fighting into a sort of game (I even had faction "bonuses" for battle purposes, but I'll let that get shot down whenever it get's to that point).

EDIT: Skirmishes are a vague term that can mean anything. 1v1 Combat, 2v1, 2v2. And there's a "Sabotage" sub-set for Indie factions specifically.

I really like this idea in theory. Not so sure it could be easily implemented in practice though, especially with the inclusion of a perks system and politics. Politics screw errything up. That's just facts and history, brah. lol

jk

My only concern, as if my concerns mean much of anything as it's all down to the Admin's say so, is while all of these "battle systems" and "points systems" being put forth [on their face] intend to make battles easier to manage, they don't really make them easily accessible to your average casual RPer. I admit to falling into this camp as I don't generally invest myself in big faction events or Main Story threads, they just usually never interest me much because they tend to [more often than not] play to the competitive edge in RPing that I personally despise.

But that point is neither here nor there right now.

My point is this: for those of us who have been around the site for a bit and know how things work, a "points/perk" system for conducting large scale battles might seem like a good idea because we've seen the unpleasant clusterfuckery and OOC pissing matches these kinds of things lead to; also not entirely sure a points system would entirely eliminate these factors either but that's another discussion.

If you put yourself in the shoes of a relative newcomer to the site and they want to participate in a battle with their character, the whole notion of having to earn "points" for their team on the battlefield actually dilutes the experience, in my opinion anyway. What a point system for battles tells people is that their character isn't important or integral to the battle at all. It's the thing they're capturing that's important rather than the personal stake each player has in the battle with their character. And at the end of the day, aren't the characters the ones who are supposed to be remembered?

Who cares about some battle for a hangar that was worth 2 points in an invasion. I'd personally rather hear about the people who fought for that hangar and what they endured - win or lose - rather than crunching the numbers on some stat chart to see that the Empire won because math.

Just my two cents.

 

[StormWolf]

Points and perks can be supplemented with tangible tactical assets for the sake of narrative. Hangar could provide rapid deployment of fighters, for example.